|In a message dated 2/15/2002 11:23:36 AM Central Standard Time, email@example.com writes:|
I see you won't explain what those functions with empty domains
I didn't know that was called for, but in the instant case, they are natural numbers. And of course I accept normal functions, including constant-valued ones. Function theory with only the empty domain cases would be remarkably boring, even by mathematics standards.
Then your position is that a definition requires the mention
of the name? The use is not good enough for a definition?>
Definitions are, by definition, of words. To be sure, there are exemplary definitions that talk about the things, but that is only a convenience (or a mistake, depedning on how generous you are). But you can't define a thing.
"Let x=5" is sloppy, the Lojbanic version would be:
"Let 'x' be the name of a variable x, such that x = 5">
This wouldn't usually be a definition, rather than an instantiation, where 'x' is already specified in some functional way and here we are assigning it (not its name, so we use it name) a value. I suppose that some computer people call that definition, too. For actually introducing 'x,' the second is correcter.
Are you really saying that? Or does the rule apply only
to the definition of functions?>
I think the sloppiness is mainly in definition, but it can creep in other places and occasionally wreak havoc.